The journalist and social critic H.L. Mencken described democracy as “the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” California, meet your new state motto.

As of Jan. 1, citizens of the Golden State are paying the wages of democracy at the grocery store, where the cost of eggs is expected to increase by 20 percent to 40 percent, thanks to the implementation of Proposition 2, a 2008 ballot measure – passed with more than 63 percent of the vote – that increased the amount of space commercial chicken farmers must allot to their birds by more than 70 percent. A subsequent law passed by the state Legislature imposed the same requirements on eggs imported from out of state, which account for about one-third of California’s market.

Why the price increase? Basic economics. By reducing the yield of farmers’ available space, the law constricts supply. While all the price pressures don’t cut in the same direction – some producers will be lured into the market precisely because of the premiums at which eggs can be sold – the net effect will still be fewer eggs and higher prices. While some facilities will adjust to the new requirements, others – such as cold-climate farmers who will have to install heaters to compensate for the lost body heat that accompanies more-dense poultry populations – will likely forego the transition altogether.

Now, there may be perfectly good reasons for implementing tighter standards. The social consensus against animal cruelty is rightly robust – but whether packing chickens tightly into a cage meets that standard is open for debate. A society capable of making reasoned distinctions ought to understand that this is a less-obvious outrage than Michael Vick’s dogfighting ring.

Such nuance is discouraged, however, when these kinds of questions are put to a popular vote, as was the case with Prop. 2. Is it any surprise that a measure originally titled the Prevention of Farm Cruelty Act was able to capture nearly two-thirds of the electorate’s approval? How many members does the procruelty caucus have again?

California’s love affair with direct democracy stems from a belief that the voters, when presented directly with the issues, will render judgments superior to those of elected officials. Given the makeup of the state’s political class, that’s a low bar to clear. It’s still not obvious, however, that voters are up to the challenge.

This doesn’t necessarily stem from the fact that California voters are dim. Rather, it owes to the perverse incentives that occur when these issues are presented to voters in a vacuum. Freer chickens? Cheaper health care? A puppy and an iPod for every household in the state? None of these are close questions when you’re not forced to reckon with the corresponding trade-offs.

Moreover, direct democracy is an invitation for voters to cast consequential judgments on topics where they have virtually no relevant information. How many Silicon Valley tech workers or Beverly Hills money managers do you think have the expertise to make a reasoned, prudential judgment about the proper standards for confining poultry? How do you suppose they’d feel about chicken farmers in the Central Valley scrutinizing the minutiae of their industries?

True, lawmakers may be (read: usually are) subject to similar intellectual blind spots. But they at least have to sit through expert testimony at committee hearings. Their judgment, while perhaps equally flawed, has the virtue of being informed consent – and punishable at the ballot box.

There may be a handful of issues on which direct democracy remains a relevant option. Hot-button social issues like gay marriage, for example, require little in the way of specialized expertise and no real understanding of economic consequences. Moreover, putting them to a popular vote ensures that lawmakers get neither too far ahead of nor behind their constituents.

As for everything else? Perhaps the voice of the people should be muted for a little while.

Join the Conversation

We invite you to use our commenting platform to engage in insightful conversations about issues in our community. Although we do not pre-screen comments, we reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable to us, and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy the law, regulation, or government request. We might permanently block any user who abuses these conditions.

If you see comments that you find offensive, please use the “Flag as Inappropriate” feature by hovering over the right side of the post, and pulling down on the arrow that appears. Or, contact our editors by emailing moderator@scng.com.